RE: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:32 PM
>To: IPv6 Operations
>Subject: Re: But are we talking IPv6 only? That's how I read 
>the draft. (Re: Some suggestions for 
>draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03)
>
>On Aug 28, 2008, at 08:27, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>> But the assumed model(s) need to be explained, in the draft,
>> so that it is clear how those models apply to dual-stack-lite
>> and to IVI/NAT64/NAT-PT -- all of which change the assumptions
>> (due to lack of publicly-routable v4 address for some of
>> those solutions).  Or, alternatively, if it is this draft's
>> intent that its model for v6-in-v4 is only intended to work
>> if the CPE has a publicly-routable v4 address.
>
>I'll expand on the relevant models for IPv6 transition mechanisms and  
>dual-stack service providers in the next revision of the draft.
>
>The minimum set of models I think we should consider are..
>
>A) CPE is a router connected to a native IPv6 service provider with  
>prefix delegation.  Note: this includes dual-stack-lite CPE, as  
>currently proposed.
>
>B) CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider where  
>IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default route to 
>the public  
>default-free zone, e.g. 6to4, tunnel-broker, etc.
>
>Are there *any* other realistic models to consider for residential CPE?

CPE is an IPv4/NAT router connected to a service provider
where IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling is available with a default
route to a border gateway for the service provider, e.g.,
ISATAP (with private IPv4 address on the CPE's provider-
facing interface).

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>
>--
>james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>
>